Preface: I didn’t write this
article but I did do some editing on it. The author doesn’t want his name in
public but wants the information to get to the public. It’s a very accurate
history of what really happened way back when. Enjoy…
In all of history there has been only one successful protest against an income
tax. It all revolves around the word “jurisdiction”. We need to go back about
400 years to discover this success. The word “jurisdiction” was still
understood at that time. It means “oath spoken”. “Juris”,
in the original Latin meaning is “oath”. “Diction” means spoken.
Over in England
about 400 years ago the Bible had just recently been put to print. Up to that
time only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to the extreme high cost
of paper. Although movable type had been around for quite some time the
printing press didn’t become popular until the price of paper fell. Of course
the hand written bibles were very expensive and only the churches and royalty
could afford them. Cheap paper changed all that.
The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. “Feud” is old English
for “oath”. The nobility had land under the crown. That land was useful for
farming. That’s how nobility made their wealth. The nobility rented the land to
tenants who farmed the land. The tenant wasn’t a freeman. He was servant to the
(land) lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the
noble required the tenant to kneel before him, hat in hand, and swear an oath
of allegiance and then kiss the nobles ring which would extend the oath of
allegiance to the heirs of the tenants estate. That oath established servitude.
Once that servitude was established then the tenant could put his plow to the
fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad
years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of what
he produced to sustain himself and his family. The nobles took the rest and
could have demanded 100%. But under the “common law” a servant was akin to
livestock, he had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed. So they allowed the
servant to keep some of his production. Liken it to “personal and dependent
The freemen of that time were primarily tradesmen. They were unsworn and unallieged to
anybody. They were truly free men. They taught their sons the trade so they
could be freemen also. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn
oath contract from the father of the apprentice. His parents made a few coins
but the kid was the main beneficiary. He’d learn a trade. He’d never need to
become a tenant farmer. He’d keep what he earned. He only apprenticed for a
term of years, usually about seven. Start when the kid is about 13 so by 21 the
kid had learned enough to practice a craft. Then the contract expired. He was
then called a journeyman. The definition of journeyman breaks down as follows.
He was a “man” now, formerly a “nee” (adolescent), bound by an oath “jur”. He’d then go to work for a “master” craftsman. The
pay was established, but he could ask for more if he thought he was worth it.
And he was free to quit. At some point if the journeyman was good at his trade
the market would recognize him as a “master” craftsman. Then he would be the
one hiring the journeyman and making oaths and contracts with the parents. Of
course those oaths and contracts only lasted a few years.
Not so the tenant. The oath of the tenant ran for life, and the life of the
heirs. So, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, at one point the
tradesmen established “guilds” (gold) as a protection against the potential of
the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelling oaths. Later to become the Order of the Free and Accepted Masons.
Who literally swore an oath to serve only gold. Basically
swearing to only work for pay. Once so sworn, any other oath of
servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never
be a servant, save to the benevolent master “gold”.
Then the Bible came to print. And they were cheap. This made it available to
all the “master” craftsmen and journeyman. The tenants were still too poor but
the tradesmen ran with it. And the tradesmen, in order to learn his trade, had
to learn how to read. Can you imagine how they felt when they read of Jesus’
command against swearing oaths? (Matt. 5: 33-37). Needless to say they were
very angry, to put it mildly. All hell broke lose. The church had been lying to
them for over a millennia. They trusted the church,
thought the church had been telling them everything they needed to know about
the Bible. Then they found out that Jesus said, “Swear no oaths”. Surprise!!!
Thus the “Reformation” was born. Without oaths there would have been no tenants
laboring for the nobility, making the nobility wealthy, and receiving mere
subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths. The whole
society claimed it was Christian; yet, it violated a very simple command of
Christ. The tradesman had done it too, by demanding contracts of indenture for
apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of
knowing that was prohibited by Jesus. They were plenty angry for being lied to
for so long by the church.
Well, the governments had seen this coming so in an unprecedented display of
unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty.
This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. The church
would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain
that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty. However, buried in
those treaties, most of which was totally innocuous, was a statement that the
church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths.
Jesus said “none”. The churches all said (and still say), “None, except…” So,
who’s right, the churches or Jesus?
The tradesmen got even angrier. They had already left the Church of England.
But with every new reformed church that popped up still opposing the clear
words of Christ, there was no church for them to join – or found. They were in
a catch 22. They couldn't form a church without swearing an oath to the state,
when their religion forbade swearing oaths of any kind. To show their absolute
contempt to those who kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone
in the church or state any respect.
These tradesmen soon got the nickname “Quakers”. This was a nickname given to
them by a judge. One of the tradesman had told the
judge that he'd better “Quake before the Lord God Almighty”. The Judge, in a
display of irreverent disrespect replied, “Thee are the Quaker here”. They
found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer. But the nickname
With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church – especially from men
who'd been the more charitable to it in the past – the church was technically
bankrupt. It wasn't just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving
to join the new “Reformed Churches”. Elsewhere in Europe,
the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far
newer Anglican Church had not.
But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the state, can't go bankrupt. It
becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so.
It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax of 10
percent. They called it a tithe. But it made a deadly mistake by doing
that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this was an income tax
“without jurisdiction”, at least so far as they went.
As men unsworn and unallieged,
they pointed out that they didn't have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent
their oaths establishing this servitude, there was “no jurisdiction”. And they
were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return
and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.
That caused the rest of society to take notice. Other folks who thought the
Quakers were “extremists” suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money
talks, and the people saw that these Quakers were keeping all they earned, while
the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, were
paying their 10 percent. Needless to say, the Quaker movement expanded
significantly. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did
charity to it. The (tithe) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of
the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly.
If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next
generation would swear an oath. Who'd then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh,
surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land
would have to be leased under a contract. With payment for
use established in the market, not on a unilateral whim of the nobleman.
The wealth and income of the nobility was about to be greatly diminished. And
the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would have to be sold off,
with what remained of that church greatly reduced in wealth and power. But far
worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and
officials. They had always held a position of superiority in the society. What
would they do when all of society treated them as only equals?
They began to use the term “anarchy”. But England
was a monarchy, which they thought was the ultimate solution to the problem. Because a Monarchy is supposed to have “Divine Right”. Whatever that is. But it worked. An expression of the
“divine right” of the Crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue
commands. The king says, “jump”, and everyone jumps.
Why do they jump? Simple. It's a crime to NOT jump. To
“willfully fail” (sound familiar?) a crown command is considered to be treason.
The British Crown issued a Crown command to end the tax objection movement.
Did the British Crown order that everyone shall pay income taxes? No, that
wasn't possible. There really was “no jurisdiction”. And that would have done
nothing to cure the lack of respect. The Crown went one better. It ordered that
every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown.
Well, a small handful of tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. The Christians
quoted Jesus “swear not at all”. They opted to obey him over the Crown. That
quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. Here's how
it went down: An official would take the witness stand swearing that he had no
record of the individuals oath to the Crown. The
individual didn't have any right to NOT testify against himself (5th amendment)
so he stated that he refused to take the oath. Once that was on the record he
was guilty and sent to jail. Pretty simple, didn't take more than 10 minutes.
Hundreds of people a day were processed this way.
Of course it didn't take long for the prisons to become full to overloaded. But they weren't filled with the convicted
people. The men who refused to take the oath weren't there. There was a ”stand-in” law allowing for that. A man convicted of a
petty crime could have a family member fill in for him so he could continue to
provide for his family. The “stand-in” was usually the youngest female. The least productive one in the family. Pretty
cruel huh? It gets worse.
Thus, the prisons of England
filled with adolescent females serving the sentences for their dads. Those
lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with
Tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years
but a small, fragile, young girl would last only a few months. It was a
holocaust of the Christians, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (Isn't
it interesting that none of this made it into the history books now taught in
our public (government) schools). Despite the high
mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the
daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of the other prisoners. The
other prisoners, the real felons, had been released to make room for the “swear
no oath” Christians. Early release was determined by the severity of the crime.
Of course high treason being the highest of crimes, so the murderers,
arsonists, thieves, rapist, etc., had to be set free.
This had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen
on every road. The thugs and muggers ruled the streets. So now the sworn
subjects of the Crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering
how they'd exist when the food and water ran out. When they did finally get the
courage to get out and get together they had to figure out a way to overthrow
the very Crown to which they had sworn an oath of allegiance to. Call that
perjury, call that sedition, call it whatever you want, they were going to put
an end to it, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Isn't it
interesting that now the Crown was being threatened to be overthrown, not by
the Christians who swore no oath to the Crown, but by the very people who swore
the oath of allegiance to the Crown. The Crown created its own chaos and
Well, the Crown soon saw the handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of
the children and recapture of the real felons, before their government was
removed from office by force of arms. Then the courts came up with the odd
concept of an “affirmation in lieu of oath”. The Quakers accepted that as a
victory. Given what they had been through, that was understandable. However,
the Christians still had a problem. Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling
the practice an oath “by thy head”.
When the colonies opened to migration the Quakers fled there in droves, trying
to put as much distance as they could between themselves and Crowns. They had a
very rational fear of a repeat performance by the Crown. By the time our
Constitution was written there were enough of them here to block ratification
of it if they opposed it in any way. Fortunately most of their demands were
incorporated into it, as well as some of their concessions, to balance their
Their most obvious influence in the Constitution is the definition of treason,
the only crime defined in the document. Treason may only arise out of an
(overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government
is not treason, hence, not a crime. The crime HAS to be COMMITTED. And refusal
or failure is not an act “committed” – it’s the opposite, an act “omitted”. Of
course that means the government employees could sit around and do nothing and
get away with it so the Quakers made their concession to allow government
employees to take an oath.
*****Anyone holding a government job would need to be sworn (or affirmed) to
support the Constitution. The Constitution enabled the Congress to enact the
laws necessary and proper to control the power of these people holding
government jobs. The laws would establish the government employee's duties.
Should such an employee (official) fail to perform his lawful duties he would
be guilty of the “action” of not upholding his oath. To swear a false oath is
perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath. And
that's still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly
obscured that FACT so the average man will pay the rent. You
know – income taxes.*****
Income taxes were around long before the 16th amendment. It took a Supreme
Court decision to narrow it down to who exactly is legally taxable. It turns
out that ONLY government employee's are subject to the
“income tax”. It was sort of a kickback to the government. But it could only be
applied to income that the employee earned from his job with the government.
Well, Congress wanted to tax all the employee's income
from all the other things the employee was earning money from. Which was a considerable amount.
The only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is to change the underlying laws
that the ruling was made from. So, the Congress enacted the 16 Amendment. Making it now legal to tax all income from their employee's.
The 16th does not mention who was liable for these taxes because the Supreme
Court had already ruled who was. ONLY government employees.
The people that had actually taken an oath to the government.
IF it could be a crime for a freeman to “willfully fail” to file or pay his
taxes then there HAD to be a time when he took an oath to be a government
employee. Because in this country a crime of failure may only
exist under the broad category of perjury (oath). Period,
Thus, if you're not a government employee the trick the government employed to
get you to pay your taxes is to make you a government employee without your
knowledge. Because they know damn well if you knew the truth about all this
there's no way in the world you'd be paying all those taxes every year.
By signing your 1040 income tax form you actually make the statement that you
are indeed a government employee. It’s hidden in the fine print at the bottom
of the form. You declared that it was “true” that you were “under penalties of
perjury”. Yet, you can't be under penalties of perjury unless you've taken an
oath. In this case the oath you took to become a government employee. It
doesn't matter to them if you've actually taken the oath, it only matters that
you say you did, and you signed your returns stating you did. They got you, and
it’s all quite legal. Now they can tax you as much as they want. Pretty slick
The Constitution also states that you cannot be tried and penalized more than
once for the same crime. You can't even be placed in jeopardy of penalty a
second time. Except if you're a government employee with a
charge of perjury. Notice that “penalties” is plural on the tax form. So
government employees, which you prove you are one of by signing the 1040, can
be tried and panelized multiple times for the same crime.
You've been tricked into signing tax forms under the penalties of perjury
clause. Yet, if you are not a government employee you are NOT under any oath
that would enable you to even commit a perjury in the first place. Again,
pretty slick huh? These guys are good.
Still, because you trusted that the government would not try to deceive you,
you signed your tax form, stating there was jurisdiction when in reality there
was none. How could there be? You never took the oath.
Once you sign that first form the government will forever believe that you are
a civil servant. Even though they know you're not. And if you stop signing
those forms, while you are still earning an income, you will be charged with
“willful failure to file”. A crime of doing nothing when
commanded to do something. Just like the good old days back in England
with the King.
There has never been a criminal trial in any manner under the federal income
tax without a SIGNED tax form in evidence against the defendant. By signing the
perjury clause on his tax form the defendant swore he was a government employee
and that he took the oath that all government employees have to take to be a
government employee in the first place. Also, by signing that form he can be
charged multiple times for the same crime (perjury). Another
benefit (?) of being a government employee.
In order to clear the whole thing up all the defendant would have to do is take
the stand and swear under oath that he was NOT a government employee and that
he NEVER has taken an oath of government employment. However, the court is in
an odd position here. Being a government employee is a matter of public record.
There would be a sworn statement somewhere by the defendant that he took the
oath sometime in the past. Of course the judge already knows there is none. And
if he allows the defendant to testify to that FACT it’s an automatic perjury. Two opposing oaths by the same individual. What’s a judge to
He becomes very absent-minded. He conveniently forgets to swear the defendant
in when he's on the witness stand. Of course, if the defendant is never sworn
in there's only one “official” statement in the record. The
perjury clause on the tax form. Guilty as charged. It is of paramount
importance to the government that the truth never becomes a part of the
official record. They MUST keep the defendant from testifying under oath, on
the record. They will go to great lengths to do this.
Yes, paying income taxes is voluntary. You have to voluntarily swear the oath
of being a government employee. No one can coerce you into doing that. It has
to be of your own free will. Once you sign that oath the voluntary part of it
is over. You HAVE to pay. It is your sworn “duty” to pay. You unknowingly took
an oath that made you a government employee. And they won't allow you to
testify in court that you are not a government employee.
Of course that’s fraud in its finest form. The same exact system
that was around 400 years ago. The same system that made everybody flee to this country to get away from. The
same system that our own Constitution was built around to avoid.
But you’re an honest man and honest men are obligated to correct their mistakes
so I suppose you could write to the head of the IRS and explain the mistake you
made signing the form and promise to never make that mistake again. Stating clearly that you are NOT a government employee and have
never taken an oath of government service. Thereby, now that you
understand the definitions of the words you most certainly AREN’T “under
penalties of perjury” because you are NOT a government employee.
Then, next year when tax time comes around write up a little statement saying
that the enclosed information is true and sign that instead of the 1040 form.
Attach that to your 1040 and pay your taxes.
The IRS is a frightening agency to go against in any way. They are indeed above
the law and don’t have to play by the rules you and I have to play by. So I
don’t advocate not paying your taxes. But I do advocate the truth. So, I don’t
see any harm in telling them the truth about your government employment.
Continue to pay your taxes but give then the real reason you’re paying. Because you are scarred to death of them and what they can do to
you if you don’t pay. Of course that’s called extortion.
The term “jurisdiction” must be understood by the public. And it must be
understood in its historical context. Jurisdiction is a simple matter. You either
take an oath to do something or you don’t take an oath to do something. No one
can coerce you into taking an oath – it HAS to be voluntary.
In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to
protect the honest man who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government
proves itself incapable of any claimed power. The only purpose of any
government should be to defend the people that established it. All of the people. And not because the
people owe that government any duty or allegiance. But
for the opposite reason. Because the government owes
the people its duty and allegiance under the LAW.
This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then our
elected officials sold out to the bankers who knew they could fool all of the
people some of the time regarding oaths and jurisdiction. Thus, we are
deceived. Not only by our government but also the church, who says that
“lawful'” oaths are okay. Yet, Christ, himself said, “take
no oaths” for you cannot serve two masters. Kind of ironic isn't it. Most of
this country is Christian. Even most of those in public office are Christians.
Of course the Kings of old were Christians too. Makes you wonder.
Meanwhile, we have chaos in this country. The IRS code is blatantly chaotic. No
two people can interpret it the same way. And the rest of the government is
getting to be the same way with all the cover-ups and covert operations. The
public (government) schools go to great lengths to dumb down the kids. Teaching them that government is not to be questioned, that
government is their “friend”.
Ignorance is indeed bliss if you are a government official doing the governing.
The last thing the government wants is an informed public, a smart public, and
a public that holds its government officials to the truth.
It would only take about 2% of the public to understand what's written here to
eliminate the income tax. But, it’ll never happen. People are too complacent
and have so many problems with the rest of life they simply don’t want to get
involved. And, I can’t blame them.
The social engineers have done an excellent job putting the public in fear and
now with this terrorism scam the Patriot Act has effectively made it impossible
to protest against our own government without being labeled a terrorist and
being tossed in jail without ever being charged.
400 years ago the people fled Europe to get away from
the very things that are now so commonplace in our present government. Now,
there’s nowhere left to flee to and if you take a real close look at it you’ll
see it’s the same “peoples” that are doing it to us again. The Kings of old now
rule this country. They own the money and they “HATE”
freedom. After all, without the slaves who would they rule?
Understanding jurisdiction – very important.